NotARocketScientist:Love the word panties. So sexual. This is the problem. There are plenty of time when a sexual reference us unwanted, such as when the person wearing them is prepubescent or over 60, or on the rag, or sick or busy or...

Having a sexual reference in a non-sexual situation is what makes the word creepy.

You mean like seeing the word "panties" in a Richard Scarry book?

I think there are creepier things in Richard Scarry books, like the pedophile fox in Officer Montey of Monaco (probably the only evil character in a Richard Scarry book, he is drawn with uniquely red eyes.) Or the simple fact that the animals routinely sit down to eat roast beef, and thus there are no cows among all the characters. They have cats, pigs, yaks, alligators, baboons, elephants, but never any cows, unless he's illustrating a Mother Goose rhyme about a cow. Remember that the next time you read to your kids: just over one of those pleasant green hillsides is a prison camp where the cow characters have all been sent for processing, like something out of "V: the final battle."

Xcott:NotARocketScientist: Love the word panties. So sexual. This is the problem. There are plenty of time when a sexual reference us unwanted, such as when the person wearing them is prepubescent or over 60, or on the rag, or sick or busy or...

Having a sexual reference in a non-sexual situation is what makes the word creepy.

You mean like seeing the word "panties" in a Richard Scarry book?

I think there are creepier things in Richard Scarry books, like the pedophile fox in Officer Montey of Monaco (probably the only evil character in a Richard Scarry book, he is drawn with uniquely red eyes.) Or the simple fact that the animals routinely sit down to eat roast beef, and thus there are no cows among all the characters. They have cats, pigs, yaks, alligators, baboons, elephants, but never any cows, unless he's illustrating a Mother Goose rhyme about a cow. Remember that the next time you read to your kids: just over one of those pleasant green hillsides is a prison camp where the cow characters have all been sent for processing, like something out of "V: the final battle."

WhippingBoy:Xcott: NotARocketScientist: Love the word panties. So sexual. This is the problem. There are plenty of time when a sexual reference us unwanted, such as when the person wearing them is prepubescent or over 60, or on the rag, or sick or busy or...

Having a sexual reference in a non-sexual situation is what makes the word creepy.

You mean like seeing the word "panties" in a Richard Scarry book?

I think there are creepier things in Richard Scarry books, like the pedophile fox in Officer Montey of Monaco (probably the only evil character in a Richard Scarry book, he is drawn with uniquely red eyes.) Or the simple fact that the animals routinely sit down to eat roast beef, and thus there are no cows among all the characters. They have cats, pigs, yaks, alligators, baboons, elephants, but never any cows, unless he's illustrating a Mother Goose rhyme about a cow. Remember that the next time you read to your kids: just over one of those pleasant green hillsides is a prison camp where the cow characters have all been sent for processing, like something out of "V: the final battle."

Holy crap man. What horrible thing happened to you?

Fatherhood. Once you have to read the same book hundreds of times, you start to notice these things. I grew up with these same books and never noticed the absence of cows---but somewhere around the 200th time I read my son Feed Big Hilda Hippo her ABCs, it finally occurred to me that this mouse is feeding a hippo a big roast (R for roast,) and this is possible because Scarry tapped one species of animal to stay behind the scenes and only really appear as food.

The critters in Richard Scarry's world will also eat turkey at Thanksgiving, and sausages of unspecified animal content, and bacon. The pigs in particular seem to have no issue with eating bacon. For some reason I find that a lot less creepy than the missing cows, because you know the cows have to be somewhere, because they are eaten. And you know they're just as sentient as the other animals, because it wouldn't make sense to have sentient pigs/sheep/goats/yaks/moose/ponies but regular cows. The only logical conclusion is that the animals of Busytown drew lots a la Shirley Jackson's The Lottery, to decide who would be the food.

It's real simple. Is a man the one speaking the word "panties"? Then it's bad and creepy and he ought not do that. Men are incapable of saying the word panties without sounding like a rapist or autistic wardrobe raider. Women can say panties all day.

gadian:It's real simple. Is a man the one speaking the word "panties"? Then it's bad and creepy and he ought not do that. Men are incapable of saying the word panties without sounding like a rapist or autistic wardrobe raider. Women can say panties all day.

hasty ambush:cantsleep: Like so many people today, the author has a dislike and makes no suggestion for a remedy.Comes across as just whining another feminist.

FTFY

/Stuff like this is one of the reasons I do not take feminism seriously.

What the F*CK does that article have to do with feminism?

Some of you guys are trying so hard to be offended, it's almost unbelievable. But this is Fark, so of course there's a plentiful supply of dumbassery. "Someone doesn't like a word. FEMINAZI! WHINING! PREDATOR GASH!"

Listen, you simple-minded, squalling idiots: It's just a light article looking at why many women are skeeved out by a particular word. It's not a statement on the size of your dick or an attack on your obviously fragile manhood. It's not a manifesto demanding equal pay for equal work, or anything as terrifyingly revolutionary as that.

sycraft:The thing I've never got about these random people who are offended by the term panties is what else do you call them? My understanding is that it is the term for a certain kind of underwear. Much like boxers, briefs, boy shorts, thongs, etc, etc. If you don't like panties... well then don't wear them. There's all kinds of underwear out there, panties are just some of the most popular for most women.

I call them undies. I'm not "offended" by the word "panties," though. It just sounds little-girly ... most of the time.

However, if, in a passionate moment, my guy says, "Take off your panties," that doesn't bother me at all. Context is everything.

FutherMucker:Hmmm...Undies sounds more 'little-girly' to me than panties does. Am I the only one thinking this ?

Yeah. Undies is tied to Underroos for me, which is underwear for children. Undies are kids underwear, Boxers and briefs are mens underwear, panties and bras are womens underwear. Underwear is just generic.

MadAzza:hasty ambush: cantsleep: Like so many people today, the author has a dislike and makes no suggestion for a remedy.Comes across as just whining another feminist.

FTFY

/Stuff like this is one of the reasons I do not take feminism seriously.

What the F*CK does that article have to do with feminism?

Some of you guys are trying so hard to be offended, it's almost unbelievable. But this is Fark, so of course there's a plentiful supply of dumbassery. "Someone doesn't like a word. FEMINAZI! WHINING! PREDATOR GASH!"

Listen, you simple-minded, squalling idiots: It's just a light article looking at why many women are skeeved out by a particular word. It's not a statement on the size of your dick or an attack on your obviously fragile manhood. It's not a manifesto demanding equal pay for equal work, or anything as terrifyingly revolutionary as that.

Calm the f*ck down.

You should have posted ariel's "clam yo tits."

Personally, i think knickers is dirtier because i associate it with BENNY hill and filthy vicar jokes. But i don"t have a blog.

MadAzza:hasty ambush: cantsleep: Like so many people today, the author has a dislike and makes no suggestion for a remedy.Comes across as just whining another feminist.

FTFY

/Stuff like this is one of the reasons I do not take feminism seriously.

What the F*CK does that article have to do with feminism?

Some of you guys are trying so hard to be offended, it's almost unbelievable. But this is Fark, so of course there's a plentiful supply of dumbassery. "Someone doesn't like a word. FEMINAZI! WHINING! PREDATOR GASH!"

Listen, you simple-minded, squalling idiots: It's just a light article looking at why many women are skeeved out by a particular word. It's not a statement on the size of your dick or an attack on your obviously fragile manhood. It's not a manifesto demanding equal pay for equal work, or anything as terrifyingly revolutionary as that.

Calm the f*ck down.

Whoa. Sounds like someone's really go their... say it with me guys... "PANTIES" (hee-hee-hee-hee-hee) in a bunch.Sorry we offended you. This is Fark, you really need to develop a thicker skin.

MadAzza:hasty ambush: /Stuff like this is one of the reasons I do not take feminism seriously.

What the F*CK does that article have to do with feminism?

It's written by a woman, so it's automatically "feminism."

If a guy writes some dreck gossip column about Justin Bieber, it's a dreck gossip column about Justin Bieber. If a woman writes some dreck gossip column about Justin Bieber, it's an indictment of feminism---either she's disproven feminism, or she's given feminism a bad name, by doing something insufficiently important or intelligent or serious at some time t.

Also, this only applies to journalists. I can blast a journalist for doing something pointless and unimportant, even if I work at McDonalds and my primary contribution to humanity is unclogging the toilet that one time.

If a guy writes some dreck gossip column about Justin Bieber, it's a dreck gossip column about Justin Bieber. If a woman writes some dreck gossip column about Justin Bieber, it's an indictment of feminism---either she's disproven feminism, or she's given feminism a bad name, by doing something insufficiently important or intelligent or serious at some time t.

Also, this only applies to journalists. I can blast a journalist for doing something pointless and unimportant, even if I work at McDonalds and my primary contribution to humanity is unclogging the toilet that one time.

dreck columns about celebs are dreck columns about celebs regardless of how the author came equipped from the factory.

when a female author writes things such as "Women, it seems, would rather not shimmy into a garment whose name would also suggest they are shimmying into a pair of knee socks and saddle shoes and handed an oversized lollipop. " or "It's well-documented that women are ahead of the curve when it comes to linguistic ingenuity. When it comes to trends, women often set them rather than follow them-so if women are disgusted, then it's our responsibility to keep the conversation going "then the dreck column takes on a decidedly gyno-centric "I AM WOMAN AND MY OPINION IS THE ONLY ONE THAT MATTERS" tone.

Xcott:MadAzza: hasty ambush: /Stuff like this is one of the reasons I do not take feminism seriously.

What the F*CK does that article have to do with feminism?

It's written by a woman, so it's automatically "feminism."

If a guy writes some dreck gossip column about Justin Bieber, it's a dreck gossip column about Justin Bieber. If a woman writes some dreck gossip column about Justin Bieber, it's an indictment of feminism---either she's disproven feminism, or she's given feminism a bad name, by doing something insufficiently important or intelligent or serious at some time t.

Also, this only applies to journalists. I can blast a journalist for doing something pointless and unimportant, even if I work at McDonalds and my primary contribution to humanity is unclogging the toilet that one time.

MadAzza:Xcott: MadAzza: hasty ambush: /Stuff like this is one of the reasons I do not take feminism seriously.

What the F*CK does that article have to do with feminism?

It's written by a woman, so it's automatically "feminism."

If a guy writes some dreck gossip column about Justin Bieber, it's a dreck gossip column about Justin Bieber. If a woman writes some dreck gossip column about Justin Bieber, it's an indictment of feminism---either she's disproven feminism, or she's given feminism a bad name, by doing something insufficiently important or intelligent or serious at some time t.

Also, this only applies to journalists. I can blast a journalist for doing something pointless and unimportant, even if I work at McDonalds and my primary contribution to humanity is unclogging the toilet that one time.

WhippingBoy:MadAzza: Xcott: MadAzza: hasty ambush: /Stuff like this is one of the reasons I do not take feminism seriously.

What the F*CK does that article have to do with feminism?

It's written by a woman, so it's automatically "feminism."

If a guy writes some dreck gossip column about Justin Bieber, it's a dreck gossip column about Justin Bieber. If a woman writes some dreck gossip column about Justin Bieber, it's an indictment of feminism---either she's disproven feminism, or she's given feminism a bad name, by doing something insufficiently important or intelligent or serious at some time t.

Also, this only applies to journalists. I can blast a journalist for doing something pointless and unimportant, even if I work at McDonalds and my primary contribution to humanity is unclogging the toilet that one time.

The_Original_Roxtar: ...then the dreck column takes on a decidedly gyno-centric "I AM WOMAN AND MY OPINION IS THE ONLY ONE THAT MATTERS" tone.

Where the Hell did you get that? I didn't pick up that tone at all. This was a light-hearted and silly article about "panties" being a grody word. Nowhere was there a sanctimonious tone or an attack on men.

Perhaps you're hearing a tone that isn't there, based on your prior experiences with real or imagined women.

Dragonflew:Aquapope: Dragonflew: I am only creeped out by the word when used by Piers Anthony. *shudder*

Oh God! Can you think of a more pervy writer than Piers? I've read a lot of his stuff (he puts out like 3 books a year) and I don't any more because he's just too damn creepy. I'm a single 47 year-old dude and I think he's creepy. Figure that out!

I used to read his stuff when I was a teen and never realised until later how disgusting he was. His love of fourteen-year-old's panties were all over the Xanth books, one was even named after them. I won't even get into the willing 5-year-old in Firefly, which disgusted me. I think he's sick. Hopefully he gets it all out of his system in text, and has not harmed anyone.

Oh jesus, I just anagrammed Piers Anthony in my head. It comes out to "HORNY PANTIES".

Christ, I always thought that was a parody of the schlock Anthony churns out. That it's a real thing makes my brain hurt.

Aquapope:Dragonflew: I am only creeped out by the word when used by Piers Anthony. *shudder*

Oh God! Can you think of a more pervy writer than Piers? I've read a lot of his stuff (he puts out like 3 books a year) and I don't any more because he's just too damn creepy. I'm a single 47 year-old dude and I think he's creepy. Figure that out!

Yeah, Robert Heinlein.

In a letter to Isaac Asimov and referring to Heinlein's novel, The Door into Summer, John Campbell said, "Bob can write a better story, with one hand tied behind him, than most people in the field can do with both hands. But Jesus, I wish that son of a gun would take that other hand out of his pocket."